Idiotic move by the copyright holder. I am curious as to why a rinky-dink Regional High School (a combined district) "was looking for an innovative way to market itself to prospective students...". Do students in Mass. often attend HS's in other regions and states?

Old Man Winter:Idiotic move by the copyright holder. I am curious as to why a rinky-dink Regional High School (a combined district) "was looking for an innovative way to market itself to prospective students...". Do students in Mass. often attend HS's in other regions and states?

Most likely this was a bot doing it. It obviously falls within fair use

Nickster79:I'm guessing the PR and copyright departments for Universal Music Group don't share notes very often

As ArkAngel pointed out, most of this is done with bots that parse the description and auto-flag things. Some bots even "listen" to the sound file and compare it to track signatures within a database. Sometimes a human looks at it, sometimes not, but YouTube takes stuff down based on bulk files they receive not from the copyright holders themselves, but from third parties they pay to enforce their copyrights.

These third parties get paid (or at least demonstrate their effectiveness) based on the number of infringing materials they flag and get removed. They have an incentive to flag anything that could possibly be construed as an infringement.

To me, it's like a speed camera. No human being saw the infraction being committed, but yet the person is guilty until proven innocent. However, on the plus side, the school wasn't paying YouTube to host the video, and they are not facing any criminal or civil liability, unlike the traffic camera situation. At least, not at this time.

ox45tallboy:As ArkAngel pointed out, most of this is done with bots that parse the description and auto-flag things. Some bots even "listen" to the sound file and compare it to track signatures within a database.

10 min with an open source sound editor and you can side step a lot of the automation fairly easily. even a n00b like me can do it.

Weaver95:10 min with an open source sound editor and you can side step a lot of the automation fairly easily. even a n00b like me can do it.

But most people can't. I agree that it is easy, but most people just simply can't do it. Besides, they also want as many views as possible, so the idea is to get people to see it with keywords that will probably include both the name of the song and the most popular performer of the song. Sharing the links around are great, but you also gain popularity when your keywords match up with people looking for the original song - as in, "let's see what these high schoolers did with it".

Weaver95:I don't think the megacorps understand (or accept) the concept of fair use. their attitude seems to be 'f*ck you - pay me!'

Their best response to fair use is to ignore it and try and change the public's perception of rights. Thousands of people bend over without a fight for every story you hear about someone making a fuss.

Oh, socialism.Oh wait.Screw intelligent content, the song ain't all that.Screw everything! Let's kill off an homage to the creator of the song because somehow, someway, it affects total sales of the product!

"It does sound like fair use. They're not trying to profit from the video or the performance of the song."

Not enough to qualify for fair use. I wish all of the energy (hate) directed by thieves that are interested in stealing movies and music from artists were more directed against business model patents. Something good might be accomplished in the intellectual properties arena.

orbister:How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?

Because it's a school that isn't attempting to make money from it. It doesn't curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner, and it doesn't substantially impair the value of the song.

Now, before you jump down my throat, please note that I am only providing one possible reason for how it could be considered fair use (as you requested), not claiming authoritatively that this particular case is absolutely fair use. My opinion is that it is, but I'm no internet lawyer. I've read some law for personal reasons but not copyright law. I could probably code plead it out if I had to, though.

Youtube being such a pushover for every petty demand of corporations is one of the reasons we all need a new video site to use. One that pretends it doesn't check its email often, and just didn't get that demand to remove a video.

Dunno about the US of A, but here in Oz, schools (and some other educational facilities) usually have a blanket licence with ARIA/AMCOS etc for use of licenced music in school-approved performances. It covers performance (e.g. song-and-dance stage show), recording of such performances (video and/or audio), and the reproduction and sale of such recordings (e.g. DVDs of the show sold to students/parents, etc). Not sure about uploading them to Youtube, though.

ol' gormsby:Dunno about the US of A, but here in Oz, schools (and some other educational facilities) usually have a blanket licence with ARIA/AMCOS etc for use of licenced music in school-approved performances. It covers performance (e.g. song-and-dance stage show), recording of such performances (video and/or audio), and the reproduction and sale of such recordings (e.g. DVDs of the show sold to students/parents, etc). Not sure about uploading them to Youtube, though.

XplodedSynapses:ol' gormsby: Dunno about the US of A, but here in Oz, schools (and some other educational facilities) usually have a blanket licence with ARIA/AMCOS etc for use of licenced music in school-approved performances. It covers performance (e.g. song-and-dance stage show), recording of such performances (video and/or audio), and the reproduction and sale of such recordings (e.g. DVDs of the show sold to students/parents, etc). Not sure about uploading them to Youtube, though.

Good luck to you on your career shift!

/Sincerely hope it works out for you.

Thanks - It's more like a second job - I made almost AUD$10K in the last 18 months filming and editing school kids prancing around on stage. Some pretty impressive talent there, too.

orbister:How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?

Choo-Choo Bear:"It does sound like fair use. They're not trying to profit from the video or the performance of the song."

Not enough to qualify for fair use. I wish all of the energy (hate) directed by thieves that are interested in stealing movies and music from artists were more directed against business model patents. Something good might be accomplished in the intellectual properties arena.

I disagree. There are a number of factors that go to determining if something is fair use. The portion of the work being used is only one of them.

(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Here, factors 1 and 4 would seem to favor the students. This isn't the type of work that is going to effect the value or market of the copyrighted work. It's not likely that people who want to listen to that song are going to watch this video instead of paying for the song. It's a not for profit, non-commericial use, and is for both non-profit and educational purposes.

Unfortunately, that is true. There's no way to know if any particular use will fall within fair use without taking it to court. Worse, most courts that have considered the issue have said that the DMCA does not require that rights holders make a determination about whether or not fair use applies before issuing a take down notice. And most service providers aren't going to risk their safe-harbor protection just because someone asserts that a particular use is a fair use, when the rights holder disagrees.

If the students know the law, and have a sense of humor, they'll find another Universal song and make a (clearly protected) parody of it addressing the absurdity of the situation.

I love copyright law. It's the bestest law and should never ever be changed. It is perfect the way it is. And noone in RIAA or IIPA or any of the other great organizations should ever be dipped in tar and rolled in feathers before they were pushed onto a float and forgotten.

Talondel:(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Here, factors 1 and 4 would seem to favor the students. This isn't the type of work that is going to effect the value or market of the copyrighted work. It's not likely that people who want to listen to that song are going to watch this video instead of paying for the song. It's a not for profit, non-commericial use, and is for both non-profit and educational purposes.

Non-profit educational purposes entails that they are playing the song for actual education. Like if they decided to sing the song in a music class to teach kids about music, or if they wanted to play a music video in a social studies class and asking the kids to critique the social commentary. Fair use doesn't mean that if you're a school and you're not making money, you're immune from copyright laws. In this case, the music is not being used as an educational tool. It is being used as a promotional tool for advertising purposes. A marketing class should be aware of the basics of copyright and the differences.

Suppose, for instance, that Boy Scouts of America decides to create a series of educational videos, using music from Carly Rae Jepsen for the theme song. Is that legal? Should that be legal under fair use?

Suppose Jerry Falwell opens up a non-profit private school for Christian bigots, and he wants to advertise. So he runs commercials for his school playing Carly Rae Jepsen in the background. Should that be legal under fair use?

Suppose that a math teacher wants to inspire all his students with the movie "Pi," so he burns 100 copies on his DVD and hands them out to all the students. He is not making any money off of it. Is that legal under fair use?

Suppose the teacher doesn't want the students to have to pay for copies of "Animal Farm," so he xeroxes out the entire book so that the students will be able to jot down notes and highlight them. Is that legal under fair use?

If a kid decides to host a file sharing network for copyrighted music with school resources, but doesn't intend to make any money off of it, should that be legal under fair use?

There are limits to what fair use can and cannot do, even for educational purposes.

Copyright is a lot like jaywalking. Most of the time, no one is going to bother enforcing the law, so you're good. But that usually relies on maintaining a low radar. If you try to create a viral video for self-promotion (not education) and alert the media, then all bets are off. And in this case, it's a private school, which means that they make more money by increased attendance.

untaken_name:orbister: How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?

Because it's a school that isn't attempting to make money from it. It doesn't curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner, and it doesn't substantially impair the value of the song

That may be fair, but it is not, as I understand it, "fair use". Fair use says that you can use extracts of copyrighted materials or even, in some cases, the whole thing, for teaching, research or criticism. It doesn't say that nice people and non-profits get a free ride.

Who would buy the track from iTunes when it's easy to download and save the audio from a Youtube video?

orbister:untaken_name: orbister: How can using an entire recording in this way be considered "fair use"?

Because it's a school that isn't attempting to make money from it. It doesn't curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner, and it doesn't substantially impair the value of the song

That may be fair, but it is not, as I understand it, "fair use". Fair use says that you can use extracts of copyrighted materials or even, in some cases, the whole thing, for teaching, research or criticism. It doesn't say that nice people and non-profits get a free ride.

Who would buy the track from iTunes when it's easy to download and save the audio from a Youtube video?

Did you miss the part where it was for a school class? That's what we call "teaching".

untaken_name:Did you miss the part where it was for a school class? That's what we call "teaching".

From the article: "Kreuz said the school was looking for an innovative way to market itself to prospective students and promote school spirit. "

Therein lies the problem. They're not doing this as a teaching tool, they're using this as a promotional tool.

Let's put it this way: You're a theater teacher. You teach your kids acting with scenes from "Grease." Now, if your kids are only acting out scenes in the context of the classroom, there's no problem. But if you're expect to do an actual production, where you advertise and promote the show, then you can expect to cough up royalties. Even if you don't charge anything for tickets and you're not making any money off of it, it's still illegal. That's how the law works. That's how the law has always worked.

In some cases, the copyright holder might deny the right to use a work at any price. For instance, if there's a touring production of "Grease" in your city, then they're not going to want a high school production to be showing at the same time. In other cases, I've had friends who wanted to adapt screenplays to stage plays, and the copyright holder outright refused. There are people who did their own stage productions of "Newsies" before "Newsies" became a stage musical. That was technically illegal.

When I was still in school, they had strict rules against video taping any theatre production of a copyrighted work, even if you were part of the staff and it was purely for archival purposes. Why? Because they didn't have the license to tape the show, and they took copyright law seriously back then. These days, audience members will take videos on their cell phone, and you can't stop them if you tried. That doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is technically illegal, regardless of whether or not you make a profit off of it.

Fortunately, copyright holders aren't likely to go after a mom who tapes her daughter in a high school play. That does not, however, mean that it is legal.

Dear Universal. I had never heard of Owl City or this song before this. Granted, it is horrid dreck and reminds me an awful lot of that Friday Friday song but at least one more person has heard of your product.

schrodinger:untaken_name: Did you miss the part where it was for a school class? That's what we call "teaching".

From the article: "Kreuz said the school was looking for an innovative way to market itself to prospective students and promote school spirit. "

Therein lies the problem. They're not doing this as a teaching tool, they're using this as a promotional tool.

Let's put it this way: You're a theater teacher. You teach your kids acting with scenes from "Grease." Now, if your kids are only acting out scenes in the context of the classroom, there's no problem. But if you're expect to do an actual production, where you advertise and promote the show, then you can expect to cough up royalties. Even if you don't charge anything for tickets and you're not making any money off of it, it's still illegal. That's how the law works. That's how the law has always worked.

In some cases, the copyright holder might deny the right to use a work at any price. For instance, if there's a touring production of "Grease" in your city, then they're not going to want a high school production to be showing at the same time. In other cases, I've had friends who wanted to adapt screenplays to stage plays, and the copyright holder outright refused. There are people who did their own stage productions of "Newsies" before "Newsies" became a stage musical. That was technically illegal.

When I was still in school, they had strict rules against video taping any theatre production of a copyrighted work, even if you were part of the staff and it was purely for archival purposes. Why? Because they didn't have the license to tape the show, and they took copyright law seriously back then. These days, audience members will take videos on their cell phone, and you can't stop them if you tried. That doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is technically illegal, regardless of whether or not you make a profit off of it.

Fortunately, copyright holders aren't likely to go after a mom wh ...

Uh, it's a marketing class. A class in how to market things. The students in the class are learning how to market things, because it's a marketing class. That is what the class is supposed to teach them and it is what they are learning. Checkmate.

Weaver95:I don't think the megacorps understand (or accept) the concept of fair use. their attitude seems to be 'f*ck you - pay me!'

It seems to be the norm. Going full "thermonuclear war" on everything. A friend of mine had his photograph used without permission by some big corporation, and when he asked for a compensation, they retaliated with an insulting offer and 20+ pages of legalize crap he had to agree to just to get paid.